Why I'm Choosing to Continue Using Sony Cameras

I went through some situations over the past four months that was making me question if I chose the right company in Sony. After hours of research and really weighing the pros and cons of all the big name companies, I chose to stick with them. In this video, I’ll give you my five reasons why.

As with all professions, deciding what tools to use are vitally important to how you do your job and photography and videography are no exception. Having the right tools that best fit your workflow and your shooting style will allow you to do your best work in the shortest amount of time. This is essentially why deciding camera company to invest in is such a pivotal point for a professional.

Sony cameras have always had a certain allure about them. The size, technology, and innovation that they’ve managed to put into such a small camera is still impressive to this day. With that being said, they aren’t without cons. These cons specifically really started to weigh heavy on me the past couple of weeks after almost having a card malfunction at a wedding and going through countless batteries on the cold mountains. I had to really sit down and be honest with myself about if Sony was still the right fit for me going forward in my career. I weighed the pros and cons of all the big name camera companies and thought out different scenarios for each one. In the end, I decided to stick to Sony. No, I wouldn’t consider myself a Sony fan boy or that Sony is the be-all and end-all of camera systems. I just personally think that it fits me best for my shooting style and workflow.

Too often we find ourselves in a game of cat and mouse for if we should switch because a new camera came out from another brand. Or we build up the grass is greener on the other side scenarios to other cameras. At the end of the day we just have to remember that the camera is just a tool to bring what our vision is to light. Learn the business, train your eye, and learn how to present yourself as a professional to clients and the rest will fall into place. Just keep shooting and creating and enjoy what you have, regardless of the logo on the viewfinder of your camera.

People like content like this, look at the billions of hours watched on opinion based photography material. Opinions are just as important as news. Opinions help people realize points that you can’t get with just reading gear specs on a site.

The Sony A9 and A7RIII have new batteries that last SO MUCH longer! People can shoot for days instead of hours with the new batteries (or at least all day!). Plus, both have 2 card slots! I can't imagine shooting an assignment without 2 card slots. And autofocus with these two cameras is comparable to Nikon and Canon. Actually, with eye detection, I feel the Sony has better autofocus. These two cameras are the first ones from Sony that are legitimate for pro use. Personally, I am a commercial photographer and shoot with the Nikon D850 now. But, I am seriously considering Sony for several advantages I feel they have over traditional DSLRs.

"Canon has better color science, we all know that"... ummm... BULLSHIT! Look at recent BLINDED head-to-head comparisons between the A9/1DXII/D5 and compare the colors. Sony gets the nod from the largest percentage of people who compare the images.
Stop regurgitating this old mantra.﻿

I agree to a point with you here...I'll qualify it by saying that Canon has historically had "pleasing" color science. It's not particularly accurate though especially the reds. In fact I don't know many camera mans. that I can actually say the color is accurate...but quite a few are pleasing Such as Canon, Olympus, Fuji and even Pentax which surprised me this past year...

One of the reasons I switched AWAY from Canon was the red/orange saturation. My wife and son are both blue-eyed, freckly, orange/blonde and I spent SO much time trying to get accurate skin/hair from the Canon images. With Sony, it's either instant or MUCH faster.

Whoa whoa whoa.... you're right. I honestly should have said on my current camera and or to my taste of end product I enjoy how canon cooks the warm tones. In terms of true color I agree with you Sony is far closer to the actual tones and color. The a9/a7r mark III both have amazing color science.

Not with Canon. At least, not with certain types of product photography. I'll add Mk IIs and Mk IIIs, dunno about other bodies. I have no idea why people think those cameras have great color. I've never seen a camera, film or digital, so inconsistent in my life.

I have a 5D Mark II I bought refurbished directly from Canon. The shadows have oversaturated blues. I have tried camera calibration, channel-level curves adjustments, and several other techniques. Way too much work to correct something that shouldn't be there to begin with. I've met one other Canon user who had this problem. His was much worse—borderline cartoonish. I don't know if this problem is unique at the copy level, but had I realized it in the beginning, I would have returned the unit for a different one.

But you said "If one is shooting RAW, as I'm sure most serious and professional photographers do, then it makes no difference." My point is yes it does. If your camera puts out shit for data, it becomes problematic and, more importantly in a production environment, time consuming to correct for, both in raw and in post.

Is it the norm for mainstream cameras today to put out varying results when it comes to color? No, it isn't. Like I said, I wasn't addressing any particular camera that you claim to have such an issue, or flaw.

It's not that simple. By design, every manufacturer's proprietary circuitry still reacts uniquely to various color values. The colors of the spectrum are not represented uniformly, even in raw images. With moderate color grading and/or the additional step of creating a camera calibration profile with a ColorChecker chart, it's possible to adjust the colors to one's liking, but at the end of the day, I can still observe differences in color characteristics between brands, even after post-production.